On August 28, 2024, the League and the Government Records Council (GRC) presented an educational webinar. The session is available to watch on demand and the presentation slides can be downloaded. No CEU credits are available for watching.
The new provisions to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) will take effect on Tuesday, September 3. Read on. New Provisions of OPRA Take Effect Septe
As of 2:00 p.m. on August 28, the “Adoptable OPRA request form” portal is open. Records Custodians can now access the Government Records Council’s adoptable form required by P.L.2024, c. 16. Read on. OPRA Request Form Now Available
As a reminder, the new provisions of OPRA will take effect September 3. As the date approaches, we wanted to bring to your attention that the League will be holding a webinar on August 28 and that the GRC has posted job opportunities. Read on. Update on OPRA
/CivicAlerts.aspxThe following is an information center for local governments pertaining to the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA). These laws impact the lives of local officials daily. The League often holds seminars on OPRA, the dates of which can be found in the Professional Development section. Below are a number of written resources for your use.
The Open Public Meetings Act, popularly known as the "Sunshine Law," was approved on October 21, 1975, and became effective on January 19, 1976 (PL 1975, chapter 231). The Sunshine Law was enacted in response to growing public cynicism about politics and distrust of government in the wake of the Vietnam War and Watergate. The intent of the Sunshine Law was to have government meetings conducted in the open, to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the public interest and without invading individual privacy.
Created under OPRA, the Government Records Council (GRC) is tasked with responding to inquiries and complaints about the law from the public and public agency records custodians. The GRC issues advisory opinions on the accessibility of government records and delivers training on the law. Most importantly, the GRC provides mediation of disputes about access to government records and issues rulings by acting as an alternative to the courts.
More information on the GRC can be found on their website, including a Custodian’s Handbook, model OPRA Request form, and other helpful templates.
Background on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision of John Paff v. Galloway Township., and Thalia C. Kay. The decision addresses the scope of a municipality’s obligation to disclose electronically stored information in accordance with the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA).
Background on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in North Jersey Media Group, Inc., v. Township of Lyndhurst, et al., a case attempting to clarify the scope of the ‘criminal investigatory record’ and ‘records of investigations in progress’ exemptions to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). This case also touched upon the common law right of access.
More information is posted on the Town Crier blog.
Mason v. Hoboken, A-22-07, decided on July 22, 2008. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division finding that the 45-day filing period of Rule 4:69-6(a), governing actions in lieu of prerogative writ, applies to OPRA suits filed in the Superior Court. The Court further found that a plaintiff suing in such action over denial of an OPRA request who receives the documents during the suit is not necessarily a "prevailing party" entitled to recover attorneys’ fees.
In this case, the plaintiff urged that a "rebuttable presumption" should exist in such a case that the plaintiff is a prevailing party entitled to such fees. The justices disagreed, instead supporting the "catalyst theory" in these matters, which allows attorneys' fees in OPRA cases only if the requestor can prove facts establishing a "causal nexus" between the litigation and its receipt of the records. However, the Court said that a different standard would apply if an agency fails to respond at all to a request within the seven business days allowed under OPRA. In such cases, the burden shifts to the agency to prove that the suit was not the catalyst for its belated disclosure.